Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, September 30, 2016

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, meet Ronald Ernest Paul. He is the very soul of a foolish consistency. Meaning that he is willing, often to a fault, to follow his ideology to its logical and most extreme conclusions.

  • pisces62

    What is simply amazing to this 62 yr old black woman, when you tell a number of white people they cannot possibley understand being black, in America, we are calling them racist because they do not understand civil rights. They don’t get it. It’s like(not really but I am trying to remain simplistic)living in California with her earthquakes. I can sympathize but I can never fathom the terror and fear when a destructive one hits until I experience it first hand.

  • drfield

    Well put and right on!

  • CarolMartin

    disgusting little man with a disgusting little mind…hope he goes back to texas and dies among his other disgusting little people like the bushes

  • Wolfboi70

    Your leaving out a VERY important factor in Ron Pauls views on govt. MANY, if not MOST of these issues at hand that are mentioned, are not simply to be abandoned by the rule of law,,as the writer wants us to believe… if you LISTEN to Dr Paul, he simply feels that the FEDERAL GOVT should stay out of these areas, this in no way means Dr Paul supports lawlessness for sake of political purity… he has clearly, and constantly, said that these laws and oversights should be done at the STATE LEVEL, One of my most favorite twists of words, which by reading this article, I am quite confidant that the author is guilty of using… is the argument that Ron Paul is for the legalization of cocaine or heroin… because he clearly states the federal government has no business telling us what we can or can not use. Heres the thing about that… he thinks, like most things, it should be handled on a smaller more localized scale…STATE LAW, where I am sure, he would agree that when it comes to most hard drugs…they would STILL BE ILLEGAL, but what this allows for is that on issues of say marijuana, if the majority of the people of Cali want it to be legal for recreational use , it can be, while the people of texas may say only for medical in their communities…and maybe Idaho say they want no parts of it, and its illegal period.It also allows then, for states to decide the punnishment on its laws where the feds wouldnt be able to have any say or guidelines. I think its safe to say there are certain things that the people, no matter how liberal or conservative they are, will still keep illegal…everywhere… but let that be worried about and enforced by the states, not federally… Ron paul wants the power where it should be, closest to the people, state, county.city etc… the federal govt should be looking out for our protection, and to insure the states it presides over are given the necessary tools for success and prosperity. And of course, federal govt would play central role to world diplomacy.
    I hope people stop taking Ron Paul in such “literal” ways, and stop painting him with such a ridiculous brand of extremism … its getting old, and most people that use their brains, see through the medias crap!! Which is why his supporters are so loyal, and his popularity is ONLY GROWING, you never see a decline in his popularity, because he never changes his message, he speaks the truth, and as his word reaches new people, it only makes his base broader and broader, slowly, but steadily, he gains support, all other contenders, lie, twist, or things from their past are exposed, thats why they have numbers that go up and down all the time, Ron Paul, tells the truth, never changes, and his past (the newsletters have been explained and they are over with, move on) is clean, he doesn’t make “deals” do sneaky things, shady dealings….his personal record and political records ARE CLEAN AND RESPECTABLE…you name another politician D or R that can even come close to that… you cant, there are none. And that speaks a million words on why he should be our president.

  • k.drone

    “Pices62”- Thank you, as a homosexual myself after researching Ron Paul my end conclusion is he uses fair judgement and would be a better judge of character more so than lets say 80% of people in the general population, I am rudely assuming have low intellect, as he can discern from his personal thoughts or prejuidices and others (refer to his position on DADT while it existed, he stated he supported the right to privacy, he also wants to end the Patriot Act, and while he has no personal understanding of homosexuals nor seems to care to, he would not discharge a gay person from the military based on the sexuality if their sexual activity was not directing affecting their job) which is a gift, and as the assumed 80% from this hypothetical general public also have innate thinking akin to personal differences his understanding separates him from the rest. He is also in his upper 70’s, very very very few people in that age bracket are without some sort of racist undertone. Why would I expect a heterosexual male or even female to understand or even come close to grasping my experience? And even if they claimed they could I do know I would be insulted and pissed off if they began to intervene in my life when I know they have no clue what its like for me, or how I feel “personally” about my experience in a homophobic world changing readily.
    Ron Paul does not insult me in the slightest. He is also a threat to Bush-Obama and any other interactive with the wars. Although this week is the first “Obama” has proved in cumulative effort that some of what he conveyed during his campaign isn’t superficial car salesmenship learnt via a coaching session at Harpo Studio’s. I see G.W.Bush cringing at the very thought of Ron Paul-seeing his numbers surge and calling Rupert Murdoch and getting him to pick up a candidate for a stint until Romney pulls ahead and they can shrug the issues and past. As Bush is backing Mitt Romney. Nothing G.W. Bush did fits into Ron Paul’s plan, he (Ron Paul) is more a threat than Obama as Paul really would step on people and shake down Washington.

  • colozona

    Wolfboi
    You are right about Paul “very changes”, that is for sure. That doesn’t necessarily add up to “always tells the truth”. The author opened by saying how consistent Paul is on his ideology over the years. That doesn’t make it correct, as he points out. This whole argument that he is only defending state’s rights is in my opinion a bogus cop out and a way to get your racist views out there and not own them as your own. We as a country had already left the civil rights issues to the states, and the is how we wound up with wholesale discrimination in the southern states, and more subtle discrimination in the north. Are you saying that discrimination is ok on a state level and the feds should just stay out of way? Wow, I thought we fought a civil war over that already. It is time to move into the 21st century.

  • ARTHUR

    Note to Wolfboi: It says somewhere or other that all U.S. citizens — coast to coast and on to Alaska and Hawaii — are entitled to EQUAL protection under the (Federal) law. Constitutional rights do not — or should not — stop at state borders. Elementary, Watson.

  • LogicObserv123

    One wonders if the commenter was raised by wolves. Some questions: How workable do you think it would be if the United States were no longer United, because that is in essence what Ron Paul is talking about, a Balkanized assemblage of states, each one asserting more, not less authority over your life, each one with its own set of wildly different laws. What makes you think that the citizens in your happy little paradise of a state are any less venal than the ones we send to Washington? Get a clue. They ARE the same pathological narcissists that get sent to DC. And being a big fish in a smaller pond makes it easier for them to screw over anybody they feel like, especially if there is no higher authority to tell them NO, when they get too big for their britches and decide to screw over anybody that might just happen to be in the minority in that state, like Libertarians for instance.

    Historically, in every single instance so far, whenever anybody starts shouting the phrase “states rights” it has ALWAYS been about nasty-ass, misguided, power-hungry people in one state or another wanting to infringe on someone else’s rights without interference from a higher authority. That, my little misguided soul, is human nature. And it does not change when you cross state lines. And human nature is exactly what Libertarians completely and consistently ignore with their goofy, unproven, never worked in any other industrialized nation before, vision of Utopia.

    The freedom that Paul envisions is the freedom for rapacious, fraudulent, murderous corporations to continue to do exactly the same thing they are doing now. Nothing in his unproven theory will change the activities and the motivations of the 1% one iota. It just makes the same crappy anti-social, drug-warring, warmongering behavior “local”, as if that would make life any easier or better for anybody but the 1% that already has the ultimate in freedom and power.

    Also, unless you desperately want the services and infrastructure to fall apart, state and local taxes will absolutely rise to compensate for Federal taxes going down. Without a National point of view, and a national monetary commitment, all roads would be state roads. Arizona, California and Nevada would not have much, if any water or agriculture. What if your state decided that it would not recognize drivers licenses from other states as being valid? That would be fun. Tourism and interstate commerce would become a joke. Smuggling various commodities from state to state would be a growth industry.

    You really need to start thing this whole thing through instead of taking Ron Paul’s word for it. The thing that is bothersome is this cult of personality. You are investing your hopes and dreams in one person, because there IS no Libertarian Party to speak of, not even big enough to get on the ballots in most states, which is WHY Ron Paul became a Republican, very comfortable to embrace all of the shitty aspects of that Party, which consists of being 100% devoted to the oligarchy, while pandering to the ignorant bigots on their precious little issues to garner votes that they would NEVER get otherwise.

    Consider the possibility that Ron Paul is pandering to you with the anti-war, pro marijuana, anti-Federal Reserve issues, but truly does not personally give a crap about them, any more than Mitt Romney personally cares about abortion. It’s all about gaining power and notoriety and saying any damn thing necessary to get it. And it works, because our nation is chock-full of people who do not think for themselves, do not ask the hard questions, regardless of political affiliation.

    That Ron Paul’s popularity is growing is meaningless. It only signifies that people are pissed off and disappointed and frustrated and searching in vain for another “Daddy” to tell them what to do and what to think and who to blame for their miserable little lives. That exact same phenomenon propelled numerous vile dictators to power. But, I waste my time. Better that I go shopping for weapons with which to shoot your stupid butt when your freedoms infringe upon my freedoms. It’s the Libertarian vision extended to its logical conclusion and brought down to the level of reality.

  • LogicObserv123

    One wonders if the commenter was raised by wolves. Some questions: How workable do you think it would be if the United States were no longer United, because that is in essence what Ron Paul is talking about, a Balkanized assemblage of states, each one asserting more, not less authority over your life, each one with its own set of wildly different laws. What makes you think that the citizens in your happy little paradise of a state are any less venal than the ones we send to Washington? Get a clue. They ARE the same pathological narcissists that get sent to DC. And being a big fish in a smaller pond makes it easier for them to screw over anybody they feel like, especially if there is no higher authority to tell them NO, when they get too big for their britches and decide to screw over anybody that might just happen to be in the minority in that state, like Libertarians for instance.

    Historically, in every single instance so far, whenever anybody starts shouting the phrase “states rights” it has ALWAYS been about nasty-ass, misguided, power-hungry people in one state or another wanting to infringe on someone else’s rights without interference from a higher authority. That, my little misguided soul, is human nature. And it does not change when you cross state lines. And human nature is exactly what Libertarians completely and consistently ignore with their goofy, unproven, never worked in any other industrialized nation before, vision of Utopia.

    The freedom that Paul envisions is the freedom for rapacious, fraudulent, murderous corporations to continue to do exactly the same thing they are doing now. Nothing in his unproven theory will change the activities and the motivations of the 1% one iota. It just makes the same crappy anti-social, drug-warring, warmongering behavior “local”, as if that would make life any easier or better for anybody but the 1% that already has the ultimate in freedom and power.

    Also, unless you desperately want the services and infrastructure to fall apart, state and local taxes will absolutely rise to compensate for Federal taxes going down. Without a National point of view, and a national monetary commitment, all roads would be state roads. Arizona, California and Nevada would not have much, if any water or agriculture. What if your state decided that it would not recognize drivers licenses from other states as being valid? That would be fun. Tourism and interstate commerce would become a joke. Smuggling various commodities from state to state would be a growth industry.

    You really need to start thing this whole thing through instead of taking Ron Paul’s word for it. The thing that is bothersome is this cult of personality. You are investing your hopes and dreams in one person, because there IS no Libertarian Party to speak of, not even big enough to get on the ballots in most states, which is WHY Ron Paul became a Republican, very comfortable to embrace all of the shitty aspects of that Party, which consists of being 100% devoted to the oligarchy, while pandering to the ignorant bigots on their precious little issues to garner votes that they would NEVER get otherwise.

    Consider the possibility that Ron Paul is pandering to you with the anti-war, pro marijuana, anti-Federal Reserve issues, but truly does not personally give a crap about them, any more than Mitt Romney personally cares about abortion. It’s all about gaining power and notoriety and saying any damn thing necessary to get it. And it works, because our nation is chock-full of people who do not think for themselves, do not ask the hard questions, regardless of political affiliation.

    That Ron Paul’s popularity is growing is meaningless. It only signifies that people are pissed off and disappointed and frustrated and searching in vain for another “Daddy” to tell them what to do and what to think and who to blame for their miserable little lives. That exact same phenomenon propelled numerous vile dictators to power. But, I waste my time. Better that I go shopping for weapons with which to shoot your stupid butt when your freedoms infringe upon my freedoms. It’s the Libertarian vision extended to its logical conclusion and brought down to the level of reality.

  • kurt.lorentzen

    The points being made here are the classic arguments for and against a large federal government. The Founders clearly meant to leave most of the lawmaking to the states. Over time, it became evident that differences in laws between states were a detriment, especially in the areas of interstate commerce, made clear 100 or so years ago as the sale of goods and services increasingly began to cross state lines. The Constitution has been amended over time to permit issues such as these to be addressed. But the spirit of the Constitution is a small Federal government acting as the “glue” to hold the states together, but not to usurp their sovereignty. The writers of the Constitution were against a central bank and some made that clear in their writings. The only reason an amendment wasn’t added to make it unconstitutional is that the amendment process was taken very seriously, the liklihood of that happening in the late 1700’s was practically nil, and they didn’t want to initiate a process of routinely amending the Constitution for fear it would render it worthless (set a precedent of amending as a typical remedy). Ron Paul’s consistency is based on his unfettered belief that the founders got it 99% right. On the surface, mainstream Republicans claim that they are for “limited government”, but their take on that is “leave business alone to re-enforce the rich getting richer”. Ron Paul is in favor of small government, but his take is “Let’s get industry back on our shores and create jobs”. FoxNews goes out of their way to discredit Paul because they see him as a threat to the “old guard”. Democrats are no better, with their “let the government control it all” attitude – clearly contrary to the founders intent. A Libertarian perspective – even when disguised by the Republican banner – is the best hope for getting things back to the way it was designed to work (and worked quite well until it was messed with). No one (certainly not Ron Paul) disputes that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not necessary (freeing the slaves, equal protection under the law, right to vote for all races), BTW those were Republican sponsored amendments. It’ll take more than one presidency to get us back on course, but make no mistake, we’ve deviated severely. A Ron Paul presidency would be a start, a movement in the right direction. If not, it’s just another round of business as usual.

  • Raymond Paiz

    I always wonder when Paul answered the allegations brought against him about his newspaper. He basically denied knowing anything about them. That does not answer the question if he believes in them. Cain denied having a sexual discrimination charge made against him because he said he knew nothing about it. Yet his company paid the women off. He has an affair with a woman for over ten years and he says he was just a friend paying for her bills. Well, his wife evidently did not believe him so he stop campainging. Now Ron Paul says he knew nothing about the articles that were racist yet he was the editor and he was the one collecting the money to print them. He made over a million dollars from those articles. I do not accept his statement that he already answered the allegations simply by saying he does not support the articles nor that he did not know anything about them. That is BS and those who believe him are fools. I agree that if you make each state an entity in itself, you will have so many messes it is hard to imagine. We need the Federal government or else we have no law. Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He wants to make himself a person of the people and he is not. He simply wants to take advantage of the people so that he can continue to make more money from the rich and follow his true beliefs at a stronger note. He is not good for America and most Americans know that. Thank heavens.

  • Victor Craig

    Years ago, a white man wrote a book, entitled “Black Like Me” in which he chronicled his experiences after he had darkened his skin and lived for a time as a Black man.
    He was struck and horrified at peoples’s attudes and treatment of him based only on the color of his skin.

    I challenge Ron Paul or any of the White conservative office-holders or candidates to do the same thing for only one month Yes. Just one month. If I had $10,000 dollars to bet as Romney has, I would bet that money that their racist attitudes and double standards would change like St Paul on the road to Damascus.

  • JohnBeale

    Wolfboi70…I think Ron Paul is missing that the United States is a Federation rather than a Confederation. As such, the states have agreed upon and agreed to follow a federal constitution. The matter of constitutionality of any state’s actions or laws is determined by the Judicial Branch of the federal government, who test it against the U.S. Constitution, not the Executive.

    In the case of civil rights, the actions of some states were determined to be unconstitutional. Since those states were acting outside the Constitution to which they have agreed, it becomes a federal matter.

    The reason for my comment is that, even if elected, it’s a real stretch to think that Ron Paul would have any ability to reshape the whole governmental structure. Candidates always seem to make promises that are outside the limitations of their prospective office.

    On the issue of civil rights, it was incumbent upon the Federal Government to act.

  • pisces62

    K. Drone–Sorry, I have no intentions of getting over anything, especially, the lie he knew nothing about the letters. The elves made shoes at night, not write letters. If you have a backer who writes, on line, to do harm(cannot type actual words) to the president, wife and children and liken them to apes, you would allow anything. The old adages are well founded, lie down with dogs and get up with fleas or you’re known by the company you keep. Was it perfectly okay to not serve black secret service men in 1993 at Denny’s because Paul thinks it was their right not to. The white ones, including their black supervisor at another table, were served, the 7 black ones never were. Was it okay for him, in 2007, to say the Civil War was unnecessary and Lincoln went against the constitution with the Emancipation Proclamation? YOu’re gay, I have a sister and niece who are lesbians. So what. Your life is your own. I would no more allow anyone to denigrate you or them in my presence for all the manna in heaven. Proof, someone , here, at work tried it with jews and I shut them up so fast and never hear the word around me. They know better, now. Maybe, as a black woman, I have experienced enough to NOT tolerate it anywhere. When our children were younger, there was a young mentally challenged boy that some kids picked on. I saw my kids in the mix. I called them home and raked them over the coals. You protect someone like him, you do not ridicule. You make sure he has as much respect as you would want. From that day until we bought our home and moved, he was one of the most beloved in the neighborhood. Their friends followed by example and no one was allowed to hurt him by word or deed.

  • pisces62

    My proof his ideology is a bit skewed. We probably would still be in the back of the bus if not for the feds. When you consider the supreme court would not stop lynching of black people as a ‘states rights’ issue, I have a really big problem with leaving anything up to most of the states. You trust them. I don’t. the proof is in their history and past laws BEFORE the feds put new ones in place.

  • vshepparddesign

    I wrote before about this. If Ron Paul ancestry was savaged by white slave owner. He would have a change of his ideology.

    If his ancestry was snatch from there homes, forced in a ship, stacked by the hundred on top of each other in a small space. Dumped in the ocean by the million, because of ramped disease, or the ship was to heavy or due to bad weather. Placed on a stage to be sold like cattle. Wiped, to do the bidding of the slave owner. Rape at will the slave woman and rip the children away from the slave mothers and sell the children to the slaver down the road. Tell the slave that they are not human. Tell a black man and woman that this is a white establishment only. Tell them that they can vote, can’t work to provide for there family, can’t own land……do I have to go on.

    And @ the idiot Wolfbio70 you stated “he (MEANING RON PAUL”), has clearly, and constantly, said that these laws and oversights should be done at the STATE LEVEL. Is racism an oversight? Does this mean that if Mississippi want to have a law that states, WHITE ONLY establishment and Pennsylvania say it is illegal. Then people who agree and disagree should reside in the States accordingly? If so I say to you and Paul please join the 21st century or craw back to the back wooded area that you came from.

  • terango.lf

    I have to admit that I have always had a Libertarian streak running through me. However, In its purest form I find it impractical in a country this size(population).
    And I find it unfortunate that Libertarians get painted with such a large brush when it comes to racism. Barry Goldwater got labeled a racist for his stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His point was that Congress did not have the authority to make this law and that it streached the commerce clause past it’s limit. His solution was a Constitutional Amendment that would obliterate the Sam Crow laws of the south, otherwise the country would have wait for the pressures of the free market forcing buisnesses to serve Blacks as well as whites in the south. I’m not agreeing with Goldwater, but he was trying to defend state rights, and thus making a Constitutional fix that would comply with the Tenth Amendment. His was more of a legal point rather than a racist point of view. Some would say the 14th Amendment with its “equal protection under the law” interpatation was sufficient, and for the most part I agree.
    State laws would never have allowed the enviromental improvements we have seen, especialy when it comes to clean waterways and the air. However, the Tenth Amendment is part and parcel a political reality that can not be ignored.

  • pisces62

    To get an amendment to the constitution, you have to get 2/3 of the states to vote for it. You REAALY think that would have happened in 1964? States Rights was maybe abused by the racists out to denigrate and subjugate my people and anyone else they felt were inferior. States Rights, to me, today, means, get into the back of the bus. As for the 14th amendment, I guess Rand Paul did not mean it went too far, along with the 15th amenedment and the civil rights act because it went too far. People are trying to change this but I watched him say it. Just like I watched Reagan say he remembers an America when there were no race problems.

  • k.drone

    Well Miss I could say the same to you-your “black” so what- same to you as with your nieces, I have “god” children whom are multi-racial (“black” Italian and Jewish)-my “black” friends with not an excess of personal insecurites know that they are monkies, in fact however as I believe in evolution we are all “apes” so actually most of this non-sense and quimmers over whose a monkey and not is utter banal arguements done to form social acceptance and defense over the nature of things(King Of The Jungle). My end conclusion is Ron Paul uses fair judgement-in the end. Maybe the server at the restaurant felt intimidated or has a problem with people, it is true masses of individuals have minor or severe “phobia’s” such as xenophobia which is a fear of foreigners………however if I were a secret service member or person of another color aside from mine and had an issue with a waiter as the server has the right to do something or not, the service members as well have the right to sue or not. Not verybody likes each other-I don’t have this issue and have come to accept others boundries or preferences.

  • kurt.lorentzen

    The point some have tried to make (although often using nearly untintelligable prose – take a writing class and maybe some basic spelling and grammar. too 🙂 is that the 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law. I agree (and the courts back me up) that the civil rights laws that made it illegal, for instance, for restaurants to be “white only”, were and are proper under the 14th amendment. Equal protection can be reasonably extended to mean, “Anything that’s legal for one person is legal for another regardless of race”. In other words, if a white person can walk into a restaurant and eat, a black person is entitled to the same treatment. Ron Paul may disagree, but everything that I’ve read about the man says that his disagreement is not based on racist sentiment, but rather that he believes individual rights trump any legislation that curtails them – even if the rest of us don’t like it – A restaurant or property owner ought to be able to decide who may enter his property for whatever reason he so chooses. That’s partially reinforced in permitting signs like “No shirt, no shoes, no service” or “The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”. We’ve all seen them, we just understand that their meaning excludes race discrimination. And that makes for a reasonable argument on the part of Paul as long as it’s applied EQUALLY on EVERY front (not limited to race issues). It once again shows consistency. I am put off by the “Ron Paul Newsletters” and for the most part I wouldn’t trust anyone saying they didn’t know about the content. But that kind of racism always presents itself elsewhere in quantity. Quite to the contrary, Paul always defends equal rights. Other than these newsletters, there’s nothing to paint him as a racist. He is so consistent in everything else he says – even when he knows it’s not helping his cause – that it’s hard to believe he would back down on racist views if they existed.

  • Wolfboi70

    First of all, rather than single out anyone by name, because these boards are not ment to be used to personally attack others… And I am above that. I will reply to the few that had nasty name calling urges, to express themselves (shows lack of intelligence/maturity) My post was dealing more with the topic that his libertarian views make him an extreamist on government, NOT DIRECTLY DEALING WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS, however… Sice a few of you felt so passionately about this, enough to personally attck me, I will share my views on this specifically, allowing you to then have reason to assaut me verbally.
    First of all, for anyone who has the idea im a bigot… I am a gay male, my views on “special rights” are this, i dont seek them, nor do i want them. I do not want to force what I am on anyone and do not expect everyone to like me nor approve of me. I do not waste my time nor effort in trying to show people I didnt “choose” this, in fact i wish i werent born like this, but if you think we choose it, thats your right, i do expect, legally, to have the same rights as my fellow Americans, yes that includes rights afforded to married people, if i in fact chose to get married. These are also my views on African americans, and all other diverse groups. You dont have to like us, we shouldnt shove ourselves in your faces to make you love or accept us either, but damn it, whats legal for you, is legal for all. Those of you that keep insisting Ron Paul is racist, have shown me that you have not taken the time to listen to him, and only take what you read from stories at face value. I never said he “likes” gays, but he RESPECTS THEM and he may or may not feel that way towards blacks as well, but he respects them and gives them equal treatment under the law. Im not here to debate where civil rights should or should not have been passed, in cases like this i tend to think federal is the place for equality, but none the less its been passed and is over with, you pple debateing history on a bill thats over and done, is silly…. Hes running for office, you look at his views and like him or dont, but to call him an extreamist, is to call our very constitution extream…. And to call me an idiot, because i shared my views…well, i think it speaks volumes on the pple writing it. I am far from racist, i respect pple who have the guts like him to say hes uncomfortable with gays like myself, but stands up for my rights as an AMERICAN, as opposed to fake bullshitters that say what they think you want to hear. To all you petty hateful people out there, HAVE NICE DAY, hope you enjoy your MISERABLE lives!

  • Wolfboi70

    Your posts were excellent, and very well written, its nice to see someone gets it. Your comment on spelling and needing a writing class were not nesesary, as on my phone i dont have spell check, and these are posts from all walks of life not schooled writers, its a bit insensitive and wasnt needed, but each to there own. Again, I did enjoy your points of view.

  • kurt.lorentzen

    I meant the bit about spelling and grammar to be tongue-in-cheek, hence the 🙂 at the end. I apologize if it came out otherwise.

  • jimmyags

    The part everyone is overlooking in this mess is that Ron Paul has as much chance of being named chairman of the NAACP as he does being elected president of the United States. Racist or not, extreme views are exactly that, the extreme. Anyone who knows anything about politics and elections knows that in order to win you have to carry a majority of the political middle. By definition, no one in the MIDDLE is going to vote for someone out on the extreme edge.

  • rustacus21

    … it’s citizens are, however. Government is only relative to the size of society, but I digress. The key point – “foolishness” – being an underpinning of Paul’s ideology, makes it all the more shocking that modern, so-called “enlightened” or intelligent Americans, would seriously consider his candidacy at all. After digging deeper, I discover his short-sitedness on the role of govt, taxation, the courts, etc., made even clearer his views on private property (Liberated slaves) & “free-market” choice (operating freely outside legal & moral “human” norms!), did he reveal himself as, well, quite manic. B4 the civil war, Americans, including Lincoln, thought Black-White inequality was inherent & unalterable. Naturally, as he engaged Abolitionists such as Frederic Douglas, he conceived – finally, “humanity” isn’t a color or culture. This evolution took place over a matter of a few years, giving hope that even Ron Paul & his supporters have the capacity to “evolve”, grow & progress…